Immediate need for house rules?

Celebrim

Legend
I'm no longer keeping up with the 4E changes. I can't get excited enough. But I'm still trying to keep something of an open mind about what is going on. I'm seeing threads about no cone shaped effects and square fireballs, and I'm immediately thinking to myself 'not in my game'. With that in mind I'm trying to get a feel for how many rules would need to be immediately house ruled for me to feel comfortable with the game.

What previews have the released so far that sacrifice too much simulation in the name of simplicity for your taste? That is, if you are planning to convert to 4E, what rules are you immediately going to house rule?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Never houserule before knowing how this will affect the game.

Also we have no idea what you think is too simple. It could be only this measurment issue or it could be the whole square thing or monsters not having OoC abilities.
 

I'm pretty sure I'll be doing *something* to the monsters.

But whether this means recreating the MM wholesale or just reverse-engineering the numbers to create something that PC's can indulge in, too, I'm not sure.

My first game will also likely be a Planescape game, so there's the whole house-ruling races and the like, but that's more of a flavor consideration, I guess.

I've also got some longstanding houserules from FFZ that I might be interjecting to fix the weird shape and movement issues (I think I might end up replacing the battle grid with a simple "rows" system), but that really depends on how heavily movement-based the game is. Because, well, without a battle-mat, movement is just going to be abstract, anyway. :)
 



Wormwood said:
Don't you want to see the complete rules in context before you start changing them?
This is the internet, please refrain from using rational thinking.

Actually, I plan on going one step beyond seeing the complete rules; I won't be doing any houseruling into I have a chance to try out the RAW. Maybe a rule will look absurd on reading, but in actual play it will work great, or at a minimum have no negative impact. I want to see that before I decide that I know better than the designers.
 

Wormwood said:
Don't you want to see the complete rules in context before you start changing them?

Generally, yes. There are some things that make no sense and I have no problem changing them sight unseen. Sometimes you end up having to counter the change with another to make it balance out.

The only rules change that I've seen in 4E that has me inclined to change it without context is, as someone else termed it, the non-Euclidean geometry. If porting the 1.5" diagonals to 4E breaks something, I'd be very surprised. But, I'd also be willing to reconsider the house rule, if it caused some sort of bizarre cascade or overly complicates things.

And, since I'm going to read the rulebooks before running a game, I'm going to get the context, anyway. I don't see my mind changing, but who knows. It's 20 years later and I still think rangers with TWF (or who can't take a boatload of damage) are dumb, but I've warmed to per-encounter powers after less than a year.
 

Thornir Alekeg said:
Actually, I plan on going one step beyond seeing the complete rules; I won't be doing any houseruling into I have a chance to try out the RAW. Maybe a rule will look absurd on reading, but in actual play it will work great, or at a minimum have no negative impact. I want to see that before I decide that I know better than the designers.

For the record, this is what I did with 3.0. I ran the first four Adventure Path (Sunless Citadel, etc.) modules with the RAW. I don't think I ran into any surprises, but I'm glad I did it.

I won't be making any huge changes to the RAW before trying it out. And believe me, I'll be watching any changes I do make pretty closely for impacts. What I think is flavor may not work in practice (like I discovered with armor as DR).
 



Remove ads

Top